W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-device-apis@w3.org > January 2016

Re: [battery] getBattery() test case feedback

From: Kostiainen, Anssi <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 11:53:03 +0000
To: "Zhang, Zhiqiang" <zhiqiang.zhang@intel.com>, Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
CC: James Graham <james@hoppipolla.co.uk>, W3C Device APIs WG <public-device-apis@w3.org>, "ms2ger@gmail.com" <ms2ger@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <821D74A5-E379-4876-80BE-E2C269BE9FF6@intel.com>

> On 13 Jan 2016, at 15:33, Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org> wrote:
> 
> On 12/01/2016 18:23, Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote:
>> With that patch (and the the promise-throw patch to ildharness), Firefox
>> gets 100% on the idlharness test. Chrome has 4 failures:
>> * one due to throwing instead of rejecting on promise returning methods
>> (in this case, getBattery())
>> * one due to a bad class string for the prototype of BatteryManager (not
>> sure where that comes from)
>> * two due to not implementing addEventListener/removeEventListener as
>> expected.
>> 
>> I think the 1st and last 2 bugs can be argued as not specific to Battery
>> API; the 2nd one probably deserves more investigation though.
> 
> I've checked, and it seems that 2nd as well is a general bug of Chrome with WebIDL, not one specific to this API:
> https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=239915
> 
> So again, doesn't seem like a blocker to me.

Encouraging progress. Thanks guys!

Zhiqiang - could you regenerate all.html [1] with the patches applied? I think you could also drop battery-interface.html assuming the battery-interface-idlharness.html gives us good coverage now.

Thanks,

-Anssi

[1] https://w3c.github.io/test-results/battery-status/all.html
Received on Thursday, 14 January 2016 11:53:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 14:54:07 UTC